Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

Dan,

In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.

It should be here, too.


A totally new concept for an engine? In the US pilot community? Come
on, you gotta be kidding. half g

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Stefan,

Then the DA42 might be your new plane.


Same cabin, basically. So you might gain load, but not space.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Then the DA42 might be your new plane.

Same cabin, basically. So you might gain load, but not space.

Dan asked for more load and more range, the DA42 provides both. Plus
more speed.

Stefan

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , "Peter Duniho"
wrote:


Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
left-handed since I started flying.

I presume that the problem Bob foresees is how to write things down while
flying the airplane.


bingo.


I guess that rules our flying a stick equipped airplane or a chopper
also, right?


Matt

In article ,
wrote:

Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
left-handed since I started flying.

I presume that the problem Bob foresees is how to write things down
while
flying the airplane.

bingo.

I guess that rules our flying a stick equipped airplane or a chopper
also, right?

no. But I'm not going to fly a side stick from the left seat.
At least not until I relearn how to write with my right hand.

I know there are left-handed pilots that are comfortable reaching
across to hold the stick, or will doing the flying with rudder or
autopilot while writing. But I want that added capability of being
able to hold the yoke and write at the same time.

And if that means I won't fly a chopper, no loss for me. I never
had any interest in them anyway.

--
Bob Noel

As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
more threatened than by it increasing.

Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.

If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.

Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.

I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the long
run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of you.
Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
albeit slowly.





"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for
you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to
find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found
a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of
old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if
it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
news

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.

No. Cessna is doing it deliberately. Cessna did not really want to
re-start
manufacturing piston singles in the first place. They promised to do it
when
some kind of tort reform was passed. Bob Dole got the tort reform passed
and
leaned hard on Cessna to start building airplanes.

Cessna sees the construction of new airplanes as a threat to a very
lucrative business: building parts for old airplanes.

So, those old planes would no longer need to be fixed?

Dan Luke wrote:

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.

It should be here, too.

There's no good argument for using them in the States. Gas isn't that much more
expensive (if at all) than Jet-A, and gas is readily available in the lower 48. When
that changes, you'll see more diesels here. Do a comparison of the diesel and gas
Maules. The diesel costs more, is slower (due to cooling drag), and carries less
weight (the engine weighs more). I also think it's pretty ugly, with that Hawker
Typhoon style cowling, but that's a personal opinion.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?
IMO, the high cost of flying is more due to excessive liability litigation,
high fuel prices, and exhorbitant certification costs for airframes and
engines.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
more threatened than by it increasing.

Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.

If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.

Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.

I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the
long
run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of
you.
Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
albeit slowly.





"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some
luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane
for
you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for
your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys
to
find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They
found
a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch
of
old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what
we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of
predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip
if
it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot
more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it
didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the
better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dude wrote:

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.


I don't agree with that at all.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
you would likely want to use.

2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to share the
airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get you an
ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few "Cubs"
parked at the airport.